Thanks Paul. This video has dichotomously made me want to order all the supplies and never think of Collodion photography ever again. I just need to step back and realize that just because I enjoy someone else's results doesn't mean I would enjoy it. I love the idea of having a basement full of chemicals right next to my studio with kick-ass lights and my old-timey camera rig, but it's just not me.

Here's a few nice ones from one of my flickr contacts..... Wet Plate Collodion - a set on Flickr . But frankly, all her photos are great, so it's still more about the photographer's skill, than the medium. I just need to keep working on my basics and not get distracted with other stuff.

taking 30 minutes to set up a shot certainly forces one to think a bit more whether it's worth it. I'm also struck by how narrow the DOF is (I understand that's because of the size of the "sensor"), but it must have been shot pretty wide open to be so narrow and still it was like a 5 second exposure with FULL on lighting.

taking 30 minutes to set up a shot certainly forces one to think a bit more whether it's worth it.

Click to expand...

Very true - I found myself thinking the same thing. Then I had a sudden reality check when I realised that the video of the whole process is around 11 minutes long... which is a lot less time than I spend post-processing any one of my "keepers"...!

Remember as well that this whole process was also originally (sometimes still is) carried out in the field, with the photographer carrying a portable darkroom and all the chemicals and accoutrements with him or her.

One of my black and white 4x5 negative shots, eons ago, took and hour to set up and then almost 2 hours to expose (f64, natural light, indoors, with a dark red filter: I was trying to turn the tomatoe white against a blue background, which went to black). And pulled about 30%, the negative was perfect. Doing the math took up half the time.

I haven't done anything like that in ages, but it was very, very satisfying.